Disposed¶40

M/S Merck Life Science Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2026WP/6156/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Indirect tax/GST demand challenged via writ instead of appeal; condonation-type relief for ~9-month delay caused by internal auditor's lapse; Articles 226/227 invoked where appellate remedy time-barred; time-bound direction to Appellate Authority to entertain delayed appeal; costs imposed; Karnataka High Court, 2026, S Sunil Dutt Yadav J.; Order-in-Original and DRC-07; recovery notice dated 23.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of: appeal to be entertained without objection on ground of delay if filed within three weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order; all other contentions kept open; petitioner to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to the Karnataka Advocates Clerks Benevolent Trust. ¶40

M/S Merck Life Science Private Limited Vs Additional… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, having failed to file the statutory appeal against the Order-in-Original within the prescribed period (90 days plus extendable one month) owing to the lapse of its internal auditor, could obtain writ relief enabling the appeal to be entertained notwithstanding the delay of about nine months.

¶27

Court's answer

In the peculiar facts of the case, if the appeal is filed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the appeal is to be entertained without raising any objection on ground of delay.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The power under Article 226 may be exercised in circumstances where justice would be a casualty; taking note of the delay of about nine months and the petitioner's admitted lapse of its internal auditor, it was appropriate to consider the financial implications and undue hardship and pass appropriate directions.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (T-RES), High Court of Karnataka (S Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.), decided 04.03.2026: M/s Merck Life Science Private Limited challenged the Order-in-Original bearing Sl.No.54/ADC/BNW/2024-25/BNW dated 27.01.2025 and the accompanying DRC-07 dated 03.02.2025 passed by Respondent No.1 (Annexures-A/A1), and the recovery notice at Annexure-B, by way of a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India instead of a statutory appeal. The petitioner had not appealed within the limitation of 90 days plus an extendable period of one month, the lapse being that of its internal auditor against whom a show-cause notice had been issued (Annexure-X); the petitioner learnt of the order only upon the recovery notice issued on 23.12.2025. Observing that the power under Article 226 could be exercised where justice would be a casualty, and noting the delay of about nine months, the Court disposed of the petition directing that if the appeal is filed within three weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the order, it shall be entertained without any objection on ground of delay; all other contentions were kept open and costs of Rs.25,000/- were imposed, payable to the Karnataka Advocates Clerks Benevolent Trust, High Court Building, Bengaluru. The order was expressly made under the peculiar facts of the case.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:13391 WP No. 6156 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 6156 OF 2026 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

M/S MERCK LIFE SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING OFFICE AT NO.50A, RING ROAD, PEENYA 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 058, COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, CHETHAN MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.818, PARVA, 4TH BLOCK, 6TH STAGE, BANASHANKARI, CHIKKEGOWDANAPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 062.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. G. SHIVADASS, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASHANTH SABARISH SHIVADASS., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU NORTH-WEST COMMISSIONERATE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX,

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13391 WP No. 6156 of 2026

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, GST COMMISSIONERATE, BENGALURU NORTH-WEST, 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH WING, B.M.T.C BUS STAND COMPLEX, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 051.

¶17

SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX BENGALURU NORTH-WEST COMMISSIONERATE, 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH WING, B.M.T.C BUS STAND COMPLEX, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 051.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶20

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) TO ISSUE ORDER(S), DIRECTIONS, WRIT(S) IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL BEARING SL.NO.54/ADC/BNW/2024-25/BNW HAVING DIN-20250157YX000000B2DD DATED 27.01.2025 ALONG WITH DRC-07 DATED 03.02.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ENCLOSED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ANNEXURE A1 RESPECTIVELY TO THE EXTENT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE PETITIONER AS BEING WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶23

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13391 WP No. 6156 of 2026

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has called in question the validity of the Order-in-Original at Annexure-A and A1. The petitioner has also sought for setting aside of the notice of demand for arrears at Annexure-B. Certain other reliefs have also been sought for. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Orderin-Original dated 27.01.2025 and the summary order on 03.02.2025.

¶27

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was required to file an appeal but has approached this Court in light of the delay, as the Appellate Authority may not be in a position to condone the delay extending the period of 90 days and extendable period of one month thereafter. It is admitted that the non-filing of the appeal was due to lapse of the internal auditor and necessary steps have been taken as against the auditor in terms of the show-cause notice issued at Annexure-X. It is submitted that such lapse of

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:13391 WP No. 6156 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

internal auditor has resulted in the present circumstances, warranting filing of a writ petition before this Court.

¶32

It is fairly admitted that the grievance requires to be adjudicated by way of an appeal instead of the present proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner came to know of the passing of the order only on the recovery notice being issued on 23.12.2025. It is submitted that thereafter, upon enquiry, the internal auditor has consented to the lapse on his part. It is to be noticed that the request of the petitioner is only to enable him to file an appeal and to direct the Appellate Authority to take up the appeal by overlooking the delay.

¶33

The power under Article 226 could be exercised in circumstances where justice would be a casualty. Taking note of the delay of about nine months and also noticing that the petitioner fairly admits the lapse of the internal auditor, against whom certain internal proceedings have been initiated, it will be appropriate to consider the

¶34

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13391 WP No. 6156 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

financial implications and undue hardship if the order is allowed to stay and in light of the same pass appropriate directions.

¶37

Accordingly, in the peculiar facts of the case, if

¶38

the appeal is filed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the appeal to be entertained without raising any objection on ground of delay. All other contentions are kept open.

¶39

The petitioner to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the Karnataka Advocates Clerks Benevolent Trust, High Court Building, Bengaluru.

¶40

7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of . It is

¶41

made clear that the order is passed under the peculiar facts of the present case.

¶42

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶43

SHS

M/S Merck Life Science Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Merck Life Science Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mallidi Sheshadri Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

M/S Shamanur Wines Vs the Assessment Unit

M/S. J K Associates Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vikash Kumar @ Yuvaraj Vs the Senior Intelligence Officer

Sidhartha Educational and Cultural Development Association Vs Income Tax Officer

M/S Bhawar Life Style Vs Assistant Commissioner Central Tax